2006 - August 21
Minutes
Planning Commission
City of Orange
21 August 2006
Monday - 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Imboden, and Steiner
None.
STAFF
PRESENT:
Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director
Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Mari Burke, Recording Secretary
INRE:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None.
INRE:
ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None.
INRE:
CONSENT CALENDAR:
(1) THERE WERE NO MINUTES A V AILABLE FOR REVIEW AT THIS
MEETING.
IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: None.
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS:
(2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2561-05, DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE NO. 4100-06 AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO.
0123-06 - MIKE'S PLACE (MIKE SHUSTER)
A request to establish a Used Car Sales business (no service facilities) within an existing
commercial structure, upgrading site improvements including landscaping, parking and
signage. The project also includes a request for an adjustment to reduce the required
front and side yard setback in a portion of the site from 10 feet to eight feet. The site is
located at 1138 West Chapman Avenue.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the prOVISions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15303 (Class 3 _
Conversion of Small Structures).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 34-06 approving Conditional
Use Permit No. 2561-05, Design Review Committee No. 4031-05, and Administrative
Adjustment No. 0123-06.
A project overview was provided by Contract Staff Planner Anne Fox during which she
highlighted:
Planning Commission Minutes
August 21, 2006
. This will be a used car sales business with no service facilities.
. The site will be upgraded as much as possible to bring it into conformance with current
zoning requirements; specifically in the areas oflandscaping and signage.
. The color of the existing building will be subdued.
. Curbing and parking will also be brought up to current Code.
Chair Bonina asked what the capacity is for the number of cars on site. Planner Fox
responded there is a limitation of 14 cars maximum for the exterior of the building.
Additional cars can be stored inside the building without creating Water Quality issues.
Commissioner Steiner asked if there is an expectation to stripe the parking lot for
customer parking and if 14 vehicles included customer vehicles? Planner Fox responded
that there will be parking striped for 4 customer vehicles leaving only 10 spaces for
displaying vehicles.
Chair Bonina asked if the requirement of 4 parking spaces was dictated by the size of the
building. Planner Fox responded that it is based on a factor of indoor and outdoor vehicle
display and the City square footage requirement.
Commissioner Bilodeau asked Staff to review what types of advertising would be
permitted. Planner Fox indicated the signs that will be removed as well as the limitations
of the Zoning Code. A summary of the applicant's current intent for signage was also
provided. Commissioner Bilodeau asked if there are any restrictions on pennant type
flags that are typically strung across parking lots. Planner Fox responded she is not
familiar with that section of the Code; however, her opinion is temporary usage may be
permitted and it would be up to Code Enforcement to enforce it. Planning Manager
Leslie Aranda Roseberry added that in the list of prohibited signs there are many types of
this style advertising listed.
Commissioner Steiner asked for clarification to the statement in Condition #13 (Page 5)
where it states "should the applicant want to increase the number of cars by 15 or more".
Planner Fox agreed that grammatically it could be revised to state the increase would be
to 15 cars or more and she added the applicant would be required to work with Water
Quality to satisfy their requirements.
Chair Bonina asked if the light standards on the site today would be modified or if they
will remain the height they are currently and if any type of banner or flag would be
allowed on the light standards. Planner Fox indicated Condition #6, the second sentence,
of the Resolution addresses this where it refers to all other signage (temporary or of a
permanent nature) shall be removed. Planner Fox also noted that the Design Review
Committee added an additional condition to ensure the freestanding sign includes the
street address.
The applicant, Mike Shuster, reiterated points made by Planner Fox and stated "I want to
use the lot and building for high end cars. I want to be able to lock them up at night and
Page 2 of 14 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
August 21, 2006
pull them out in the daytime. The fact that I can only have 8 or 9 cars there is not a big
deal." Mr. Shuster added that he did not see it as a problem to make the changes
requested.
Chair Bonina asked if there was any intent to elevate any of the vehicles for display. Mr.
Shuster asked if he would be held to his response? Chair Bonina responded
affirmatively. Mr. Shuster stated "now, no, because I can't get any expensive cars up on
lifts like that." Chair Bonina asked if there are any hoists in the existing building and if
so, if they would remain. Mr. Shuster responded there are 2 and he will leave them in the
ground; however, he will decapitate them so they won't be functional.
No public comment was provided on this item.
Recognizing that this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15303 (Class 3 -
Conversion of Small Structures), Commissioner Bilodeau made a motion to approve the
recommended action, recognizing the change to Condition #13 as discussed, adopting
Resolution No. PC 34-06 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2561-05, Design
Review Committee No. 4031-05, and Administrative Adjustment No. 0123-06.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Steiner
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Steiner
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
(3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2577-06 - GLAVAS RECREATION
ROOM
A proposal to allow for the installation of additional plumbing facilities (toilet and sink)
in association with an existing recreation room attached to the rear portion of a detached
garage. The site is located at 100 I East Everett Place.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1-
Existing Facilities).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 33-06 approving Conditional
Use Permit 2577-06.
A project overview was provided by Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry during
which she highlighted that prior to the issuance of building permits the property owner
must record a covenant stipulating that the garage, the recreation room, storage rooms,
bathroom, etc. will not be used, rented, sold or leased as an additional dwelling unit on
the site. This covenant document must be approved in form and recorded by the County.
Page 3 of 14 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
August 21, 2006
Chair Bonina asked Staff to explain the recourse in the event there is a violation and the
structure is occupied as a dwelling. Ms. Roseberry responded that the first steps would
be through the code enforcement process. They would contact the property owner by
mail requesting they cease the action by a given date. Ifthis remedy failed there would
be a request made to the Planning Commission to revoke the Conditional Use Permit.
Beyond these actions the matter would be referred to the City Attorney's office. Gary
Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney added that the action taken by the City Attorney's office
would be to file a criminal complaint and the City could also file civil and revocation
actions.
Chair Bonina asked if the site had already been built out? Ms. Roseberry responded the
petition walls are already in place; however, they are new. Further, there would not be an
addition to the garage; they would just be building out the bathroom facility.
Chair Bonina asked if air conditioning and heating are proposed? Ms. Roseberry did not
know.
Commissioner Steiner asked what was meant by "legalize" in the Project Description.
Ms. Roseberry responded it usually means something has been done without permits and
the applicant has come forward to obtain the necessary permits.
Commissioner Bilodeau asked if the required covered parking is 2 spaces. Ms.
Roseberry responded it would be 2 spaces for R-l. Commissioner Bilodeau stated with
the proposed partition wall it appears the garage door is only approximately 15'-16' wide
and asked ifthis left adequate garage parking. Ms. Roseberry responded the requirement
is for an interior space of20'x20' and that is what is available.
The applicant, David Glavas stated:
. He resides at this address with his wife and stepchildren.
. The garage will be widened with a wall going in across the back. This would make the
garage interior 20'x20'.
. Heating and air conditioning will be installed to make the facility habitable in the
summer and winter.
. His stepson has cerebral palsy and will use this facility to entertain his friends and have
some sense of independence.
No public comment was provided on this item.
Recognizing this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1-
Existing Facilities), Chair Bonina recommended adoption of Resolution No. PC 33-06
approving Conditional Use Permit 2577-06.
SECOND:
Commissioner Steiner
Page 4 of 14 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
August 21, 2006
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Steiner
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Glavas asked if they would be contacted regarding the covenant or if they needed to
initiate the action. Ms. Roseberry responded the Project Planner would contact them.
(4) ZONE CHANGE 1237-06, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2578-06
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1778-06 - SANTIAGO CREEK
ORANGE MOBILE HOME PARK
A proposal to expand the Santiago Creek Orange Mobile Home Park by incorporating the
approximate 0.5-acre parcel within the Park boundaries and improving the 0.5-acre parcel
for 6 new manufactured residences. The site is located at 692 N. Adele Street.
NOTE: Negative Declaration No. 1778-06 was prepared to evaluate the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed project in accordance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 35-06 recommending to the
City Council approval of Negative Declaration No. 1778-06, Zone Change 1237-06, and
Conditional Use Permit No. 2578-06.
Senior Planner Chris Carnes provided a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Bonina asked if this request was for a modification to the existing Conditional Use
Permit for the larger development or if this was a separate Conditional Use Permit unique
to the other. Planner Carnes responded this was a separate request for incorporating this
property into the mobile home project.
Chair Bonina asked Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz if the Commission would be
afoul of any legal issue by creating a second Conditional Use Permit versus modifying
the original permit. Mr. Sheatz responded, "no".
Mr. Bill Cathcart represented the applicant and thanked Staff for the many months they
have worked on the project. Further Mr. Cathcart stated:
. He believes this is a good project for several reasons:
(1) It takes a piece of property that is not on the highest economic doles for the City
from the property tax standpoint.
(2) It helps with affordable housing in the City of Orange.
(3) The recreational vehicle storage is to be used by the residents only, it is not for
privately subscribed recreational vehicle storage.
Page 5 of 14 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
August 21, 2006
. He had an issue with Condition #12 that would give pedestrian access to the Wanda
Recreational Trail as from a land use perspective, the only place where that access could
be granted would be in the pool area. For safety reasons that was not advisable.
. There are no problems with any of the other Conditions.
Commissioner Steiner asked for clarification that Mr. Cathcart had looked at the request
of Staff (Condition #12) for an access gate and his judgment was that the pool area is the
only area where the gate could be located. Mr. Cathcart confirmed.
Commissioner Bilodeau asked where the secondary emergency vehicle access is located.
Mr. Cathcart responded you would come down Kathleen and cross over any of the streets
to Adele. There is only one way in and out of this project and that is on Adele; however,
there is an emergency loop on the project site, which has been reviewed by the Fire
Department. Commissioner Bilodeau asked ifit would be good for the community to put
in an emergency gate for a secondary access through the creek. Mr. Cathcart indicated he
didn't know if it would be possible as there is a pretty steep slope on the other side of the
fence leading down to the concrete channel.
Commissioner Imboden asked for clarification that the mobile homes would be single
story. Mr. Cathcart responded affirmatively.
Chair Bonina stated there is reference to a setback for each pad that is developed and
asked if there are vehicles that would overlap the pad dimensions thus truncate the
setback. Mr. Cathcart responded they do not intend to do that.
Chair Bonina referred to Photos 4 and 7 and asked why a wrought iron fence was
suggested along the property line. Mr. Cathcart stated he believed Staff suggested it for
police security purposes.
No public comment was provided on this item.
Chair Bonina recommended adoption of Resolution No. PC 35-06 recommending to the
City Council approval of Negative Declaration No. 1778-06, Zone Change 1237-06, and
Conditional Use Permit No. 2578-06.
The motion was modified to include omission of Condition #12, in the General section of
the Resolution.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Bilodeau
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Steiner
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
Page 6 of 14 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
August 21, 2006
(5)
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4095-06
RESIDENCE
MIDSTOKKE
A proposal to convert an existing attic into a new 484 sq. ft. bedroom and bathroom. The
building is a contributing, 988 sq. ft., one-story 1887 Gabled Roof Cottage. The
conversion includes new interior stairs and the installation of windows on each gable end
of the roof. The site is located at 154 N. Shaffer Street, within the Old Towne Orange
Historic District.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provIsIOns of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15331 (Class 31 -
Projects limited to maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration,
preservation, conservation or reconstruction of historical resources).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Deny Design Review Committee No. 4095-06.
Chair Bonina announced this was not a public hearing; however, input from the public
would be accepted. A project overview consistent with the Staff Report was provided by
Leslie Aranda Roseberry. Ms. Roseberry clarified there was a correction to be made on
Page 2 of the Staff Report; specifically, the Applicant is not Craig Wheeler as indicated;
Craig Wheeler is the Architect for the project.
Ms. Roseberry stated the Planning Commission is being asked to review the project as
the Old Towne Design Standards indicate that when there is an addition in excess of 20%
to a contributing structure, that project requires approval of the Planning Commission.
Although the project would normally go to the Design Review Committee first, it was
recommended that the project be forwarded directly to the Planning Commission as the
project Architect is a member of the City's Design Review Committee.
Chair Bonina asked about the prior condition of the property and asked if there was a
stairway to the second story prior to this remodel. Ms. Roseberry responded it would not
have been original to the house.
Chair Bonina also pointed out there was wall covering visible in the photographs, which
may indicate the second floor was occupied prior to the remodel. Ms. Roseberry
indicated she did not know when the photos were taken.
Chair Bonina asked specifically what it was with the exterior of the house that presented
an issue with maintaining the integrity from a historical perspective. Ms. Roseberry
responded it was the existence of windows on the gabled end.
Craig Wheeler, the project Architect introduced himself and forwarded photographs
provided by the current homeowner. The photographs were taken of this home earlier
and of similar homes in Orange that appear to have windows on the second floor. In
addition to the photographs, the folders included letters from two neighbors
Page 7 of 14 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
August 21, 2006
complimenting the homeowners on the project.
Mr. Wheeler indicated the Staff Report frequently referred to the dwelling as a
contributing 1887 Gabled Roof Cottage and he felt that designation was incorrect in
several ways; specifically:
(1) On Page 2 of Attachment #2 of the Staff Report, Line 14 states that the
construction date is "c1887" but on Line 19 of that same page it mentions that the
house was actually built in 1912. As was cited in the Orange Daily News the
1888 date may refer to an earlier internal portion of this structure or to a separate
structure, which was demolished when this portion was built in 1912. Mr.
Wheeler's opinion was that if this is true, it would appear that this house is one of
the newest rather than the oldest home on the west side of that block of Shaffer.
(2) While often referring to the house as "contributing", the Staff Report never
mentions that it is currently clad completely in mid 20th century metal siding with
an imitation wood grain. If the original siding had been covered in stucco Mr.
Wheeler stated it would not be considered contributing.
(3) It would appear that this home, like so many in Orange has suffered by what Mr.
Wheeler referred to as "porch abuse" on a regular basis. He referred to the aerial
topographic map of 1975, which was included in the Staff Report and shows a
smaller porch, which occurs, on the southerly or left side of the front elevation.
The Historic Resources Inventory (Attachment #2) shows a configuration much
like today's. Mr. Wheeler pointed out that the current porch has little historic
value in that:
(a) The current handrails and pickets are modern dimensional lumber.
(b) The posts, unlike the simple continuous square posts shown in the
inventory photo are now constructed of modern dimensional Ix6 boxed
out members above the railing with a larger boxed out section below.
(c) The inventory photo shows a small roof overhang at the porch, which is
no longer there. One can still see evidence of this overhang on the home's
metal siding at each side of the porch roof.
(d) The roof framing of the porch seems to be a mixed bag of modern and
historic lumber sizes suggesting that the porch roof was reconstructed at
some point using recycled lumber.
(e) It would appear that the only historic elements visible on the home today
are the door and window trim and perhaps the fascias and barge boards;
but even the door and window trim (although probably original) are now
set flush with the metal siding channel that surrounds the trim. This
makes the original trim seem to almost appear to be painted on the surface
rather than raised against the background siding.
(f) The home as it exists today has one startling feature that is not mentioned
in the Staff Report: it has no attic vents. While there is one small attic
vent on the rear elevation, which mayor may not be original, there are
none of the decorative and necessary gable vents that are found on
virtually all gabled roofed homes in Old Towne Orange.
Page 8 of 14 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
August 21, 2006
In Mr. Wheeler's opmlOn, the Staff Report's recommendation that the addition be
constructed to the rear of the residence rather than converting the attic into living space
would have a far more detrimental effect on the structure than the current solution. Mr.
Wheeler stated:
. The three new windows (and proposed roof window) do far less damage to whatever
historic fabric remains then would an addition to the rear.
. The massing would change from a cottage to a cottage with an obvious major addition.
. The traditional service porch would probably loose all historic meaning with the
addition of new living space behind it.
. More of the landscaped surface of Orange would be replaced with hard surface
materials.
. None of the drawings he prepared include any work to be done to the front porch
landing, stairs and railings. In fact, Mr. Wheeler's drawings call for the existing front
porch to remain.
. It was his understanding the latest round of front porch abuse was undertaken with
permits by a previous owner of the property.
. The 1975 aerial map shows a rear structure that very closely matches the size and
location of the current one. It appears this addition was done prior to 1975. A copy ofa
letter from a former owner indicating that the size and occupancy is the same as it was in
the '70's was provided to the Commission.
. The current owners did not concur with the Staff recommendation to remove the
unpermitted, converted living unit as mentioned on Page 5 ofthe Staff Report.
In conclusion, Mr. Wheeler indicated that the impacts to the structure due to the addition
of the new live and dead loads of the second floor will be the subject of analysis in the
next phase of the project. Further, if any changes, which will be visible on the exterior,
are necessary, the drawings will be resubmitted to Planning.
Chair Bonina asked if it was Mr. Wheeler's understanding that the remodel that was
already completed did not require any permits. Mr. Wheeler responded that it was his
understanding the remodel was done without permits; however, it certainly required
them. Chair Bonina asked if there was a reason the permits were not obtained. Mr.
Wheeler responded it was a misunderstanding and the owners (who were present) are
very apologetic.
Commissioner Imboden discussed the discrepancy with the dates of construction and
asked Mr. Wheeler if he had looked at the property, as there are clearly construction
differences that would be obvious. Mr. Wheeler responded, "so much of it is now hidden
that it is hard to say; certainly it's old, the dimensional lumber inside is historic. I come
down more on the 1912 side than on the earlier side." Commissioner Imboden asked him
to share how he came to this conclusion. Mr. Wheeler responded the window proportions
are more of what is seen after the turn of the century. Commissioner Imboden pointed
out that Mr. Wheeler had already indicated the windows had been replaced and asked
about the structure itself. Mr. Wheeler stated that nothing he saw would help him to
Page 9 of 14 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
August 21, 2006
make a determination and the original windows of the house are still there except for the
three new windows on the second floor. Commission Imboden stated he thought the new
windows did not meet the egress requirements for a sleeping room. Mr. Wheeler agreed
and indicated two changes would be made:
(1) Convert one of the windows to a legal egress window by making it a casement
that would still appear to a double hung.
(2) Add a roof window on the rear plane of the gable roof to meet the light and air
requirements.
Commissioner Imboden asked since there has been so much discussion generated by City
Staff that this was (and traditionally has been) a single story residence if they had
explored putting in dormer windows to the rear so as to not change the visible elevations
to the side. Mr. Wheeler responded he wasn't involved with the project when it was
originally done and he is proposing to make as few changes as possible. Further, it was
his opinion it would be hard to get new dormers in the back because there is a central
gable that houses the master bedroom so they would need to be off to the side. Mr.
Wheeler added that they would certainly give it a try if the Commission preferred that
solution.
Commissioner Imboden asked if there are any changes to the porch being proposed. Mr.
Wheeler responded that contrary to the Staff Report they are proposing to leave it as it is
now. Commissioner Imboden asked if there is any evidence that the changes represent
anything that was there historically. Mr. Wheeler referred back to the aerial photo where
the original porch appeared smaller and in a different position.
Commission Imboden stated that typically the work done at the Design Review
Committee level with this type of project is to ensure compliance with the Secretary of
Interior Standards and also within the Orange Municipal Code. It also provides for a line
of demarcation. Mr. Wheeler agreed that there hasn't been demarcation done and added
that he didn't know how they could do one due to the nature of the work that has already
been done i.e. there wasn't an addition made to the volume of the house; the only real
visible change to the exterior was the addition of the three windows and the proposed
addition of the roof window.
Commissioner Imboden asked if the front doors (which don't appear to be permissible in
Old Towne) and the asphalt driveway, have been addressed in this project. Mr. Wheeler
stated he has not addressed those two items thus far in the project.
Mr. Jeff Frankel. OTPA introduced himself to the newest Commissioner, Scott Steiner
and familiarized him with the charter of OTPA.
Mr. Frankel stated:
. They were surprised City Staff didn't issue a Stop Work order on the project when they
became aware of the illegal construction activity.
Page 10 of 14 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
August 21, 2006
. This is a very unique historic resource being the only pre 1900 example of this style
remaining in the district.
. He believes they should stick with the Inventory date.
. They fully concur with Staffs review and recommendations.
. This project does not meet the Old Towne Design Standards or the Secretary ofInterior
Standards and it is not exempt from local CEQA guidelines.
. They also share the opinion that the windows placed in the gable should be removed
and the space restored back to an attic.
. A more sympathetic solution and one that meets the Standards to construct additional
living space to the rear ofthe home as recommended by Staff is more appropriate.
. A concern of the OTPA that is rather disturbing is the perception that if you have a
controversial project you only have to hire a DRC member as your architect and the
project will receive approval. There really needs to be a policy in place to address and
discourage this practice. At the very minimum, any project a DRC member brings
forward should meet the Standards.
. There are many homes in the District that are sided with alternate materials and they are
still considered contributing.
. The previous owner removed the porch about three years ago. The realtor that listed the
property built the existing porch.
In closing Mr. Frankel strongly encouraged the Commission to deny this project, per
Staff recommendations.
Chair Bonina asked Mr. Frankel if the windows were removed and used in the back if
that would be an acceptable option from an OTPA perspective or if there would still be
an issue with the second story. Mr. Frankel responded that the style, design and profile
of the windows are inappropriate for the style of home. Further, if it met Code and the
features were not visible from the street that would be a better alternative.
Ms. Janet Crenshaw. OTPA stated she used to live on Shaffer Street so she knows this
house well. She rejected the argument that if the structure had been altered slightly it is
no longer historical. She cited examples in town where changes had been made and the
dwellings were still considered historical. She agreed with all the Staff findings
regarding the attic addition and added that any restoration, rebuilding or reconstruction
should be done with permission from the proper City departments so problems of this
nature could be avoided.
Mr. Wheeler responded to the public input by stating it seemed pretty clear according to
the historical survey that it's more likely 1912 than 1887 and he didn't know anything
about the condition of the wood siding underneath the metal siding. Looking further at
the drawings he thought it would be very difficult to do dormer windows in the rear as
there is not much room and the only way to do it would be to somehow remove the rear
gable, which is part of the original fabric of the house. He couldn't see any way to meet
the light, air and egress requirements other than by having the windows on the gable side.
Page II of 14 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
August21,2006
Chair Bonina asked Mr. Wheeler to clarify that his position was the introduction of a
dormer in the back was not practical. Mr. Wheeler confirmed.
Commissioner Bilodeau asked about a page in the packet of materials that appeared to be
a building permit issued May 2, 2005 to build the porch. Mr. Wheeler responded that he
was told that was the permit given to a previous owner to demolish and rebuild the porch.
Commissioner Bilodeau noted there were four (4) conditions (although they were not all
legible) and he asked Mr. Wheeler if the conditions were all met, to his knowledge. Mr.
Wheeler responded they weren't legible to him either and he therefore couldn't comment.
Commissioner Imboden asked if they were proposing a pop up window on the rear
elevation and asked if it would be possible to do something like and gain the egress
requirement. Mr. Wheeler responded it could certainly be done for light and air but
based on the configuration of the rear roof it may not be possible to get the sill height.
He added that it might be possible over the stairs but you wouldn't be able to access it.
In an attempt to find a way to permit the work while still meeting the necessary
requirements, Commissioner Imboden asked if a wooden screening device over the
windows (as shown in one of the examples in the booklet provided) could be used? Mr.
Wheeler responded he would explore some sort of shutter-like device.
Chair Bonina asked for Mr. Frankel's perspective on Commissioner Imboden's comment.
Mr. Frankel responded he hasn't seen the booklet. When the photo was shown and
Commissioner Imboden explained how he envisioned it, Mr. Frankel stated he was sure it
would be fine. Commissioner Steiner asked Mr. Frankel for clarification that his concern
was that what was traditionally a single story home would still appear as a single story
home and if the suggestion proposed by Commissioner Imboden would adequately
address that. Mr. Frankel replied, "That would suggest it is still a single story house and
that the devices are basically vents for the attic."
Chair Bonina commented that the suggestion made by Commissioner Imboden might be
a solution.
Commissioner Imboden stated it is problematic to use the photographs of other properties
to justify the current project and he commented on each of the examples. In closing
Commissioner Imboden commented that he was very concerned that more research
hadn't been done for the proposals brought forward i.e. it certainly it should not be
difficult to look under this house or elsewhere to determine if it is 1887 or 1912. He
stressed it is essential to know the date to be able to understand if the proposed changes
are feasible. He seconded the comments made by others regarding the non-contributing
siding not impacting the status of the home and stated this is a national registered
property. He was troubled that changes are being made without a line of demarcation.
He agreed there is something to be said for utilizing space within the existing bulk and
mass rather than adding to the house; requested resolution to the driveway and the front
door, and a review of the Standards to have this project brought into greater compliance.
Page 12 of 14 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
August 21, 2006
Commissioner Steiner echoed the comments of Commissioner Imboden and expressed a
degree of concern with respect to the claim that if a house has been altered in the past, it
has lost its historical character.
Chair Bonina asked Staff if the project did move forward at some point how would the
permits be secured for the portion already built. Ms. Roseberry reviewed the process
required.
Commissioner Imboden stated that the process as defined by Ms. Roseberry raised
additional issues i.e. in order for this project to move forward there most likely would be
structural changes required i.e. shirring at the first level of the house. Commissioner
Imboden cited further examples and illustrated to the homeowners some of the other
issues they may confront.
Chair Bonina stated he wasn't necessarily comfortable with the drastic recommendations
of Staff; however, he wasn't prepared to move forward with an approval as the project
was presented. Chair recommended a continuance of the project incorporating some of
the suggestions made by Commissioner Imboden.
The property owner indicated they did nothing to the rear unit other than painting and
cleanup and asked if there was any way they could get it approved so they could rent it
out while they worked on the front structure? Ms. Roseberry responded that this
accessory second unit is non-compliant in two areas: it is definitely less than the required
450 square feet and an additional parking space must be provided. Staff was unable to
obtain evidence there were building permits issued for this second unit and indicated if
the homeowner could produce the permits or proof this was a legal second unit, it would
not be an issue. Furthermore Ms. Roseberry indicated there is most certainly an
opportunity to have a second unit on the sight and she reviewed the necessary
requirements. Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz interjected that this request was not
noticed as part of the application.
Commissioner Imboden asked for confirmation from Staff that this project is before the
Commission as a Design Review Committee item due to the special nature of the
application and that it also would have come to the Commission due to the addition being
in excess of20%. Ms. Roseberry responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Imboden asked if noticing had been done. Ms. Roseberry responded it
would not have been noticed because it would have been a Design Review Committee
item forwarded with a recommendation to the Planning Commission and therefore it is
not considered a public hearing.
Commissioner Imboden made a motion to continue the project giving the applicant an
opportunity to further investigate ways to bring the project into greater compliance with
the Standards while:
(I) maintaining the single story nature of the home and trying to meet the Code
Page 13 of 14 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
August 21, 2006
requirements on the rear elevations
(2) City Staff addresses the door and the driveway
(3) a determination can be made as to what is required structurally
Commissioner Steiner offered a second and commented that Mr. Wheeler indicated in
some ways the Staff Report contained inaccuracies with respect to comments made
regarding rebuilding the porch, etc. and to the extent there could be agreement as to what
is being proposed with regard to the facts it would be beneficial.
Chair Bonina noted the recommendation of Staffreferences the removal of the accessory
second unit and restoration to a garage and asked if this would be problematic for the
Commission in terms of continuing the project. Ms. Roseberry responded unless they
propose a second unit that meets the City Standards or they can provide proof of permits
for the second unit, it would have to be removed. Chair Bonina stated when they come
back with their application, the secondary unit would have to be addressed. Ms.
Roseberry concurred.
Chair Bonina thanked and offered congratulations to Commissioner Imboden for crafting
a solution that could be a win/win for all parties.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Steiner
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Steiner
None
None
None
Chair Bonina made a motion to adjourn the meeting to the next regular meeting on
Wednesday, September 6, 2006.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Imboden
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Steiner
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
MEETING ADJOURNED @ 8:55 p.m.
Page 14 of 14 Pages